My understanding is that EVERY person arriving in the USA, even in transit MUST clear immigration.

And that is certainly what the page I linked says also.

A citizen of a foreign country traveling in immediate and continuous transit through the United States (U.S.) in route to a foreign destination requires a valid transit (C) visa. Exceptions to this requirement include those travelers eligible to transit the U.S. visa free under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) or travelers who are nationals of a country which has an agreement with the U.S. allowing their citizens to travel to the U.S. without visas.

Understood in that case better to transit through Calgary it's a pity that US airports are "sterile" as said ! Travelling via CDG, FRA, or AMS does not require me to have a Schengen visa although in the best fare i had found on Amadeus i will need to wait for more than 18 hours at FRA to get my flight to YYC !

Indifferent if it's YYZ or YYC or any other airport as long as it is in Canada, but Amadeus only gives me flights through FRA and YYC ! The others are through FRA and ORD or CDG and MSP and that is not suitable...

My understanding is that you will need a transit visa. I see absolutely NO reason for this other than just another knee-jerk policy created after 9-11. As much as we would like to see you spend some money here, our "leaders??" don't seem to want it.

These are the same people who don't seem to realize that when we raise our visa fees, other countries will do the same for US passport holders. Woah, don't even let me get started on what I think of our post 9-11 policies!

Not sure if or what they charge for a transit visa, but let us know if you come through Chicago. Maybe some of us can meet you there.

Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 9):Who's against changing this law? And why? Not needing a visa works fine in so many places.

The same goes for rechecking bagage.

non visa-waiver International transit passengers are such a miniscule segment of the passengers that redesigning airports to accommodate this would not be cost-effective. Additionally, it is further complicated by the US' lack of exit controls. There is no way of segregating transit pax unless you put them in a separate holding room, which would limit their access to airport amenities and generally be unpleasant.

As for the baggage, there are some airline and airport specific routings that don't require baggage recheck (mainly on from Mexico and Latin America to Europe on UA via IAH). They have a waiver from customs. However, there is not alot of interest from the airlines in getting certified to participate in this program since the passenger volume that would be affected is so low that it is not worth the cost.

Quoting TS-IOR (Reply 10):Indifferent if it's YYZ or YYC or any other airport as long as it is in Canada, but Amadeus only gives me flights through FRA and YYC ! The others are through FRA and ORD or CDG and MSP and that is not suitable...

You might want to try something other than amadeus because I see tons of routings on expedia involving LH, AC, TS, or AF for around $1400 via YYZ and FRA/CDG that are around 20 hours total travel time.

Oh yeah, Canada also has the same issue. They tried implementing sterile transit to the US at YVR in the 1990's at it was a disaster. People kept booking flights to the US via Canada and when they got to YVR they would claim Asylum. It got to the point where Canada discontinued the program from the early 2000's until recently and even now it is very restricted...

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 13):non visa-waiver International transit passengers are such a miniscule segment of the passengers that redesigning airports to accommodate this would not be cost-effective.

It doesn't matter if you're non visa-waiver or visa-waiver. Either way, you have to go through an unnecessary US immigration check as well as go through the hassle of getting a visa or an ESTA.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 15):Oh yeah, Canada also has the same issue. They tried implementing sterile transit to the US at YVR in the 1990's at it was a disaster. People kept booking flights to the US via Canada and when they got to YVR they would claim Asylum. It got to the point where Canada discontinued the program from the early 2000's until recently and even now it is very restricted...

This doesn't make sense to me. How can you claim asylum if you're in "no man's land"?

Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 16):It doesn't matter if you're non visa-waiver or visa-waiver. Either way, you have to go through an unnecessary US immigration check as well as go through the hassle of getting a visa or an ESTA.

Yes it does matter. The US does not have exit controls therefore there is no way of separating domestic and international departures. Because of that, everyone arriving in the US has to clear immigration. For visa waiver countries, that is not a huge deal but for non-visa waiver countries that generally means they won't (or can't) transit the US. My point is, there are not alot of places for which transiting the US is really geographically convenient, so it is not high on the list of things US carriers and airports want to use their political capital to try and change...

Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 17):This doesn't make sense to me. How can you claim asylum if you're in "no man's land"?

Asylum seekers don't wait for a "sensible" situation to occur.....they are driven more by desperation to either get away from a country where they are oppressed or to get into a country that is a highly desirable place to live in (such as Canada or the US).......we've been facing this issue for a long time now and that's one of the main reasons why the requirement for a transit visa is there......

Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 9):Who's against changing this law? And why? Not needing a visa works fine in so many places.

The same goes for rechecking bagage.

The people it inconveniences are not US citizens (and therefore don't vote) so congress could really care less. Only way it would change is if airlines and airports put pressure on on congress but this issue is not very high on their list of priorities...

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 18):The US does not have exit controls therefore there is no way of separating domestic and international departures.

You would physically have to separate domestic and intl. flights, thus creating an international and a domestic hall. Yes, you would have to remodel the airport a bit, but not drastically. Separating a pier/concourse (whatever) at one end of the airport from the rest by immigration would be enough.

Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 14):
I think that US citizens are very lucky that other countries don't make visa requirements for them stricter to be on par with what their citizens have to do to enter the US.

While most don't force US Passport holders to go through a formal visa process (interview, etc.), many countries, especially in South America per my readings charge reciprocity fees equal to the amount a citizen of X country would have to pay to enter the United States. I know for a fact this is the case in Chile and a number of other countries. I just did a search and there are a bunch of stories detailing how Americans touring South America end up paying upwards of US$500 in said fees.

For many countries, tourism is a big chunk of their economy so making it difficult for travelers, not just US passport holders, to enter is counterproductive even if our exceptionally onerous visa process is unfair.

25 Seat55A
: As a matter of historical interest, which actually came first - the decision to have a visa requirement for transits, or the decision to have Immigrat

26 rfields5421
: For the US - immigration checks at entry only came first. In the US, international flying is a very small percentage of the total flights. Even at ga

27 Seat55A
: But did it pre-date the era of international aviation? Apart from the obvious statistical or practical facts, there's a legal issue and when was that

28 StarAC17
: You have many option from FRA to Canadian airports as AC/LH fly to YUL, YOW, YYZ, YYC, and YVR. Perhaps you can look at BA to YYZ or YYC through LHR

29 usflyer msp
: That is why many (most?) nations' travellers have to get european transit visas even if they use the sterile transit facilities.

30 RussianJet
: The UK, for example, requires many nationalities to obtain a direct airside transit visa even if they don't intend going anywhere near immigration du

31 Birdwatching
: The one place that would really benefit international sterile transit is MIA (American Airlines). They could build MIA into a hub of connecting Europe